ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
In vitro suction comparison of 3 flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS) of 2 sizes using a 7.5Fr single-use flexible ureteroscope: an AUSET-EAU endourology collaboration.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paradigm shifts in fluid management using suction irrigation pressure autoregulating systems in modern flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction access sheath: an evidence-based narrative from EAU Endourology.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
- The future of endourology is now.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- The impact of preoperative CT-based 3D visualization model on ureteric access sheath placement failure without pre-stenting.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy alone for infected upper urinary tract stones: a retrospective cohort study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Incidence of urinary infections and urosepsis after ureteroscopy for stone disease: a systematic review of literature.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary aim was to study the in-vitro suction performance of three different Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheaths (FANS) of two sizes each. The secondary aim was to study the impact of digital occlusion versus thumb sliders on suction performance.
methodsWe used the 7.5Fr single-use Flexible Ureterorenoscope from Innovex Medical (US27F-12-EU). The six FANS used were: 10/12Fr and 11/13Fr Innovex 40 cm FANS, ClearPetra 46 cm FANS, and Reborn 40 cm FANS. Time taken to suction 100 ml saline was measured. To test efficiency of stone suction, 1000mm
resultsAll three 11/13Fr FANS had suction rates three times faster than their 10/12Fr counterparts (p = 0.001 for all FANS), when digital occlusion was used. Innovex and Clearpetra FANS had faster suction rates than Reborn FANS when suctioning 100 ml saline, for both 10/12Fr and 11/13Fr. For the Innovex FANS, there was no difference in suction rate when using the thumb slider or digital occlusion. However, Reborn FANS had slower suction rates when using the thumb slider compared to digital occlusion for both 10/12Fr and 11/13Fr sizes. Innovex FANS was the fastest in suctioning upper pole calculi, followed by Clearpetra FANS, and Reborn FANS the slowest for 10/12Fr (198s versus 237s versus 537s respectively, p < 0.001) and 11/13Fr (158s versus 174s versus 332s respectively, p < 0.001). 10/12Fr and 11/13Fr Reborn FANS were not able to reach the lower pole calculi. Between Clearpetra and Innovex, there was no significant difference in time taken to suction lower pole calculi.
conclusionsFaster suction was achieved with 11/13Fr instead of 10/12Fr FANS. With digital occlusion, the Innovex and Clearpetra FANS both performed similarly better in their suction performance than the Reborn FANS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40643713What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.